Hey not everything is in black and white. The complexities of a global leader are tempered by many factors, not all easy to swallow.

We have discussed adding this feature extensively and have decided to not pursue this option - at least at present.  There are a variety of reasons why (from the philosophical to the technical) - and in the future we may change our minds - but assume that for now that the Candidate Selection Sessions will be the primary vehicle for candidates to explain their yes/no questionnaire answers.

However, what IS on our roadmap is to stand up blogs for the 4,350 session finalists (final 10 in each of the 435 districts) for them to post in-depth treatises, should they choose to do so, on each questionnaire answer.  These postings will likely be made public so that their peers in the system - as well as the public at large - can better understand the nuances and depth of thought behind each of their answers.

We encourage everyone to type up 'position papers' as they crystallize their thoughts behind their questionnaire answers for the sake of documenting their positions as well as being a resource for them to bring to the Candidate Selection Sessions.  Carl's suggestion is a great alternative method as well.

Michael,

That's a great idea, but if that is something that is not technically possible given the present coding in use on this site, I'd like to throw something out there.

You could create a position paper based on your responses from the questionairre and post them to one of the social networking sites (ie.  myspace, facebook, etc.) and create a separate forum thread with a link to that paper.  That way, in their busy schedule of promoting GOOOH, they would still only need to edit content on the site and not have to spend time editing code in order to allow for positions on the individual questions to be entered.

I'd like the GOOOH creators to weigh in on this so there's some form of order here.

Thoughts?

I would like to see a space under each of the question where the candidate can explain the details or conditions when he or she would vote "yes" or "no." 

As with all "lines" that have been drawn, we will ultimately allow the members of GOOOH to determine if the right number is one, two, or three.

On the issue of congressional term limits, I'm trying to find some substantive content where the two two-year terms are most predominantly suggested.  The most common I have found as a baseline is three two-year terms for the House and two six-year terms for the senate.  One source of this I've found is the Cato Institute and the other is USTL.  In the early/mid 90s when the Republicans regained control of the House, they attempted to pass an amendment for six two-year terms and the USTL organization tried to push them down to three two-year terms.  Unfortunately, the Republicans couldn't get the 2/3 vote to pass the measure.

So my question is from where did the two two-year term limit come, or is it a personal opinion/agenda item?  While I would support two two-year terms as the limit as it is definitely discouraging to those who aspire to perpetual power, I would like to do more research on the issue.  Can someone please provide the source of the focus groups who made the recommendation on two two-year terms?  I'm just the type of person who prefers to see the sources for myself.

Thanks!

Carl

A candidate can change his/her position via the "override clause." It is described in the Learn | FAQ's (the tenth question), and in more detail in the book. To do so, the representative must post the issue on the GOOOH Web site and the registered members of GOOOH within that district must vote to allow the change.

We have had too many politicians who have promised to vote for term limits, not to increase taxes, to protect the environment, to be fiscally responsible, etc., and then do just the opposite. GOOOH demands accountability. Politicians, unfortunately, have not proven that they can be trusted.

Also recognize that we are only asking ~100 questions. 2000 or more different issues will likely come up for vote. The true value in the questionnaire is so participants can develop a profile on each candidate BEFORE they are selected - the questionnaire will allow you to predict, with amazing accuracy, how a candidate is likely to vote on other issues. On the major issues, representatives will be locked, as GOOOH believes they need to be.

There is a way for a candidate to change their position, if elected to office.  That is a mandate from their constituents.  The process is described somewhere on this site, though I can't remember exactly where.  Maybe in the FAQs?